17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multicenter Evaluation of the BIOFIRE Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel for Detection of Bacteria, Yeasts, and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in Positive Blood Culture Samples

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Diagnostic tools that can rapidly identify and characterize microbes growing in blood cultures are important components of clinical microbiology practice because they help to provide timely information that can be used to optimize patient management. This publication describes the bioMérieux BIOFIRE Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) Panel clinical study that was submitted to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Results obtained with the BIOFIRE BCID2 Panel were compared to standard-of-care (SoC) results, sequencing results, PCR results, and reference laboratory antimicrobial susceptibility testing results to evaluate the accuracy of its performance. Results for 1,093 retrospectively and prospectively collected positive blood culture samples were initially enrolled, and 1,074 samples met the study criteria and were included in the final analyses. The BIOFIRE BCID2 Panel demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 98.9% (1,712/1,731) and an overall specificity of 99.6% (33,592/33,711) for Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria and yeast targets which the panel is designed to detect. One hundred eighteen off-panel organisms, which the BIOFIRE BCID2 Panel is not designed to detect, were identified by SoC in 10.6% (114/1,074) of samples. The BIOFIRE BCID2 Panel also demonstrated an overall positive percent agreement (PPA) of 97.9% (325/332) and an overall negative percent agreement (NPA) of 99.9% (2,465/2,767) for antimicrobial resistance determinants which the panel is designed to detect. The presence or absence of resistance markers in Enterobacterales correlated closely with phenotypic susceptibility and resistance. We conclude that the BIOFIRE BCID2 Panel produced accurate results in this clinical trial.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods.

          Simple interval estimate methods for proportions exhibit poor coverage and can produce evidently inappropriate intervals. Criteria appropriate to the evaluation of various proposed methods include: closeness of the achieved coverage probability to its nominal value; whether intervals are located too close to or too distant from the middle of the scale; expected interval width; avoidance of aberrations such as limits outside [0,1] or zero width intervals; and ease of use, whether by tables, software or formulae. Seven methods for the single proportion are evaluated on 96,000 parameter space points. Intervals based on tail areas and the simpler score methods are recommended for use. In each case, methods are available that aim to align either the minimum or the mean coverage with the nominal 1 -alpha.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of Piperacillin-Tazobactam vs Meropenem on 30-Day Mortality for Patients With E coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae Bloodstream Infection and Ceftriaxone Resistance

            Extended-spectrum β-lactamases mediate resistance to third-generation cephalosporins (eg, ceftriaxone) in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Significant infections caused by these strains are usually treated with carbapenems, potentially selecting for carbapenem resistance. Piperacillin-tazobactam may be an effective "carbapenem-sparing" option to treat extended-spectrum β-lactamase producers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidance on the Treatment of AmpC β-lactamase-Producing Enterobacterales, Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Infections

              Background The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) is committed to providing up-to-date guidance on the treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections. A previous guidance document focused on infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR-P. aeruginosa). Here, guidance is provided for treating AmpC β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (AmpC-E), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections. Methods A panel of six infectious diseases specialists with expertise in managing antimicrobial-resistant infections formulated questions about the treatment of AmpC-E, CRAB, and S. maltophilia infections. Answers are presented as suggestions and corresponding rationales. In contrast to guidance in the previous document, published data on optimal treatment of AmpC-E, CRAB, and S. maltophilia infections are limited. As such, guidance in this document is provided as “suggested approaches” based on clinical experience, expert opinion, and a review of the available literature. Because of differences in the epidemiology of resistance and availability of specific anti-infectives internationally, this document focuses on the treatment of infections in the United States. Results Preferred and alternative treatment suggestions are provided, assuming the causative organism has been identified and antibiotic susceptibility results are known. Approaches to empiric treatment, duration of therapy, and other management considerations are also discussed briefly. Suggestions apply for both adult and pediatric populations. Conclusions The field of antimicrobial resistance is highly dynamic. Consultation with an infectious diseases specialist is recommended for the treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections. This document is current as of September 17, 2021 and will be updated annually. The most current versions of IDSA documents, including dates of publication, are available at www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/amr-guidance-2.0/.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                J Clin Microbiol
                J Clin Microbiol
                jcm
                Journal of Clinical Microbiology
                American Society for Microbiology (1752 N St., N.W., Washington, DC )
                0095-1137
                1098-660X
                25 May 2023
                June 2023
                25 May 2023
                : 61
                : 6
                : e01891-22
                Affiliations
                [a ] Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                [b ] Department of Laboratory Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                [c ] Infection Biology Program, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                [d ] Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Attikon University Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
                [e ] Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA
                [f ] The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
                [g ] Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, USA
                [h ] The Greater Romagna Area Hub Laboratory, Cesena, Italy
                [i ] DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
                [j ] Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
                [k ] Northwell Health Laboratories, Lake Success, New York, USA
                [l ] Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
                [m ] University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                [n ] bioMérieux, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
                Medical College of Wisconsin
                Author notes
                [*]

                Present address: Gregory J. Berry, Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

                The authors declare a conflict of interest. This info is included in the body of the manuscript: Authors received research funds paid to their institutions from BIOFIRE Diagnostics, LLC, which is now known as bioMérieux, Inc. K.H., B.K., and D.Y.L. are employed by the study sponsor. D.D.R. was employed by University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center during this study. D.D.R. has received research support from Altona, BD, bioMérieux, Bio-Rad, Cepheid, Cleveland Diagnostics, Luminex, HelixBind, Hologic, Qiagen, Q-Linea, Specific Diagnostics, Thermo Fisher, and Vela; and D.D.R. has or has had advisory relationships with Luminex, Next Gen Diagnostics, Renascent Diagnostics, Roche, and Seegene. A.L. has received research funding from BIOFIRE, Cepheid, and Luminex. J.-M.B.-L. has served as a consultant for bioMérieux and also participated in other BIOFIRE clinical studies. A.H. has received industry sponsored grant funding from bioMérieux (BIOFIRE), and Beckman Coulter, and she has consulted for Bio-Rad. G.J.B. has given educational seminars sponsored by BIOFIRE and has also served on a BIOFIRE advisory panel. R.S. has received honoraria from bioMérieux for speaking engagements.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7636-5191
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3075-3586
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0767-6826
                Article
                01891-22 jcm.01891-22
                10.1128/jcm.01891-22
                10281132
                37227281
                516d6930-3e51-4d02-8c47-0011c087dca7
                Copyright © 2023 Rhoads et al.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

                History
                : 3 January 2023
                : 27 January 2023
                : 13 April 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 10, Equations: 0, References: 12, Pages: 10, Words: 6004
                Categories
                Bacteriology
                clinical-microbiology, Clinical Microbiology
                Custom metadata
                June 2023

                Microbiology & Virology
                bcid2,pcr,antimicrobial resistance,bacteremia,blood culture,rapid diagnostics,sepsis

                Comments

                Comment on this article